Miranda v. Blair Tool & Machine Corp.

Adriana Miranda (plaintiff) was injured at work while operating a machine that was owned by her employer, Osrow Products, Inc. (Osrow) and manufactured by Blair Tool & Machine Corporation (Blair) (defendant). Miranda sued Blair in connection with the accident; Blair then filed a third-party complaint against Osrow. Miranda’s supervisor, who witnessed the accident, made an oral statement about the accident to representatives of Osrow and Blair and an unidentified lawyer who may have represented a private investigation firm. During the discovery process, Miranda requested a transcript of the supervisor’s interview, which she claimed was an accident report within the meaning of Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 3101(g). Osrow moved for a protective order to avoid producing the transcript, arguing that the transcript was (1) inaccurate due to the supervisor’s limited command of English and (2) shielded from discovery by CPLR § 3101(d) as material prepared for litigation. In support of its motion, Osrow submitted an attorney’s affirmation that the supervisor’s statements were not made in the regular course of Osrow’s business and were made solely for litigation purposes, but the affirmation was not based on the attorney’s personal knowledge. The supreme court granted the protective order and denied Miranda’s request for production of the transcript. Miranda appealed.